The era of postmodernism breaks through, or rather wishes to destroy any mainstream elements which were used in the modern era. Where modernism looked towards progress and predictable solutions, postmodernism did just the opposite. When speaking of the term postmodernism and film, films usually leave the audience unsettled through its fragmented, ironic and disjointed narrative. Many other characteristics such as the blurring of boundaries between truth and fiction, and the manipulation of time and space are elements used in postmodern film. Postmodern film, putting the focus on the liminal space1.
Film analysts have been trying to ascertain and prescribe a code to the region that makes film communication dissimilar or distinct in its own way from the other forms of art, One art form is not necessarily better than another, but both forms of media and art can be used for propaganda or to spread and communicate particular ideas or messages. Nonetheless, the utilization of a code that puts forth a message mainly by images on a screen as opposed to by words helps to determine and describe the powerful unconscious responses of movie audiences and separates and draws a line of distinction between film and literature. Film has come up with a series of signals that bring about a response from a spectator every single time a signal is used. In the writing art form, a word such as Hiroshima brings to memory certain images and scenes related to it, most of them from the rolls that audiences have seen in movies, and get a context of their own. Under sound film, moving images often are seen to be carrying meaning more in comparison to the words that come along with them.
Scenes including an interpreter are challenging to dub since the target language becomes the main language of communication in the dubbed version, “thereby not only creating an unnatural communication, but also rendering one professional figure utterly superfluous, namely the interpreter” (208). In fact, as also pointed out by Dwyer, the character of an interpreter in a film becomes unnecessary if a multilingual dialogue in which he intervenes is dubbed in a single language (299). By fictionalising such characters, filmmakers would seek to make films that are impossible to dub (Ibid). Because they are particularly challenging for translation, some link multilingual films and the concept of “untranslatability” (Ibid 305). This does not mean that they cannot be translated, but rather that a good translation is really hard to achieve due to the inherent peculiarities of each language and
If he had full faith in the morality of the system, he would have stayed and given himself in. However, he felt like being imprisoned without committing any crime was unjustifiable and unfair to himself. So, he ran. This shows that the rule in the movie was not, in fact, morally universalizable. As can be seen, so many parts of this movie that can be seen as universalizable are only universalizable due to chance, wording, or blind faith.
In terms of contemporary society, movies serve as a powerful medium of representation of particular historical events and prominent personalities. In the most cases, people tend to believe in what they might see on the screen without thinking of the academic background on which the historical movies naturally should be based. To be more specific, in a great number of films, even if they are based on the historical events, everything is displayed in rather an inaccurate way. Along with their initial cultural significance, movies can equally be inexact in terms of original research upon the matter they are intended to convey. What is more, there can be seen certain cultural myths and bias against the historical facts in the films and Braveheart being one of the most powerful historical movies is not an exception.
As far as the characters of both the novel and the film versions of Fight Club are concerned, we could easily see that some aspects of main characters in the novel, especially Tyler Durden and Marla Singer, are slightly modified in the film version. Fincher’s depiction of Tyler in the movie is closer to the popular culture, while Palahniuk doesn’t favour a popular character as he intends to create a more non-capitalist character. In this sense, Fincher’s manner as a director could be interpreted as a betrayal to the source material. What’s more, Tyler’s portrayal in the novel is more rebellious and chaotic; nevertheless, he isn’t that much impressive in the movie. In other words, Fincher tones down the extent of Tyler’s violence and his approach to capitalism both of which are the main interests of the novel.
Creating film adaptations of stage productions can be very easy, but creating a film adaptation of a stage production that makes effective use of the film medium to communicate an idea without losing the essence or message of the original production, well, it can be quite difficult. Although screenwriters, cinematographers, and directors have and use various tools that aren’t available to playwrights and book writers they often struggle with the effective presentation of an idea. They wonder what they could change to enhance the author’s message and how they could change it without losing/disparaging the original charm or themes. The constructive use of film techniques and film medium is the key to both a distinguished film adaptation, and the successful presentation of major ideas. It is evident that in Miller’s 1996 film adaptation that one of the major ideas present in The Crucible is the irony of male power.
The idea of three dimensional cinema is to bring the art of film making closer to reality. Initially the three dimensional technology wasn’t acknowledged because of the high cost of equipment. Directors chose to remain faithful to the flat screen two dimensional cinemas as new ideas went accepted. [name] feels that this sort of reaction was first experienced when they introduced sound to the cinema. Now to imagine a movie without sound seems impossible to modern day directors except when he specifically wants to employ a particular style to his movie to produce a desired effect.
Later films began to avoid frontal confrontations with caste issues. “Entertainment became important” says Baskaran. Says Masaan Neeraj Ghaywan: “Cinema is an escapist, aspirational, larger-than life world. In that sense, it is too Brahminical in its ethos to give good space to caste
It doesn’t have anything else, and this is not a movie to be taken seriously. If you thought that this was going to the movie with a grand love message, the problem is on your side and not with the movie makers. Use that side of brain somewhere else, as there are many serious ones and grand superstar movies which work against